Length of service and remorse factors saving employment relationship
An Ontario worker has been reinstated after being dismissed for stealing equipment he thought was going to be thrown out anyway.
Harry Dejong, 65, was an industrial millwright for Lanxess, a synthetic rubber producer. The facility where Dejong worked was in Sarnia, Ont., and made butyl rubber for the tire industry and pharmaceutical products. He was hired in 1969 and had a clean disciplinary record other than receiving censure for working too many hours once. Over his many years with the company, Lanxess considered him a reliable and good worker.
The Lanxess facility was fenced in and had a main gate staffed by security personnel 24 hours per day and a smaller gate to a compound which was staffed only Mondays to Fridays from 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. The smaller gate was monitored by the main gate staff via camera the rest of the time.
Lanxess had a policy allowing employees to drive company vehicles off-site “by permission and for company business purposes only.” Breach of this policy was considered theft and would result in discipline. Employees who had to work overtime were allowed to take company vehicles to one of three designated restaurants nearby but nowhere else.
Another policy stipulated that all company property, including materials designated for scrap, could not be taken off-site without documented permission. Employees could bid on surplus materials the company sometimes disposed of and they could be given scrap material, but they needed an “advice of shipment” form — or “no value slip” for scrap — from the Lanxess store operations supervisor to remove material from the premises.
Dejong was aware of the policies, as demonstrated in January 2015 when he asked for an advice of shipment form for railway ties lying outside the smaller gate. Though he was told they were not company property and the supplier had given permission to take them, Dejong insisted on getting the form so he wouldn’t have difficulties with security officials when he took them.
There were several large wooden spools around the facility which were used for steel cable. The company had to keep track of them and return them to suppliers for deposit once the steel cable was used up. Sometimes if the spools were in poor condition they would be discarded in dumpsters instead of being returned. Employees could purchase spools or acquire ones considered scrap through the regular advice of shipment process.
On Jan. 24, a scheduled day off, Dejong was asked to work some overtime to repair a piece of equipment. Because of the last-minute nature of the call, he didn’t have a chance to eat dinner before coming in. Once he was done his repair work, he had an hour before he had to check the machine, so he asked the production supervisor if he could leave for a meal break as he knew his wife was making dinner. He didn’t ask for permission to take a company vehicle home for dinner, so the supervisor assumed he was going to one of the designated restaurants.
As Dejong proceeded to the two company vehicles that were available — an open-bed truck and a pickup truck — he saw two wooden cable spools that he had seen lying around earlier in the month. He also noticed a panel van normally used by tradesmen was available, so he decided to roll the spools into the van and drive the van home for dinner.
Dejong drove the van through the smaller gate, which wasn’t staffed at that time because it was Saturday. However, on his way home he was stopped by a police officer who was a former Lanxess security officer and knew employees weren’t allowed to take company vehicles so far from the facility. The officer contacted Lanxess security and told them about the van and the spools, and security relayed an order for Dejong to return.
Dejong headed back to the Lanxess facility, but he later testified that he “panicked” and stopped to dump the wooden spools in a ditch at the side of the road. At the main gate, he acknowledged that he had dumped them and complied with instructions to retrieve them. He then returned them to the spot where he had found them, completed his duties and went home.
The following Monday, Dejong met with his supervisor and another manager and told them “I want to come clean and tell the truth about what happened.” He said he didn’t think he needed no value slips because he thought the spools were being discarded, as he had noticed them sitting there for some time. He also explained why he went home for dinner in the company vehicle, as he hadn’t eaten and was pressed for time. He denied any advance planning of the theft but acknowledged “I realize now I did steal without asking or took without permission; I realize now there is possibly a value on these spools.”
Lanxess management reviewed the security reports and decided Dejong had committed theft of company property that was preplanned. It terminated his employment on Jan. 28. Dejong expressed shock and remorse and asked for his job back. He letter delivered a letter of apology asking Lanxess to reconsider.
The arbitrator found that Dejong knew he was violating workplace rules to drive a company vehicle home without express permission as well as taking the wooden spools. It was also likely that he decided to take the panel van because he would be able to conceal the spools in it, which added an element of preplanning. When he later tried to conceal his misconduct by dumping the spools on the side of the road, it compounded his predicament.
However, the arbitrator noted that the collective agreement didn’t contain a specific penalty for theft, but rather it was one of the options available to Lanxess — the company had a policy of progressive discipline for most forms of misconduct. In addition, “the most significant factors are those which speak to the employee’s character and trust rehabilitation potential,” the arbitrator said.
In Dejong’s favour, he was a 45-year employee with a good record of service and no prior discipline. It also seemed evident he didn’t preplan the theft, as he wasn’t even originally supposed to be at work that day and instead took advantage of an opportunity. Once he brought the spools back, he acknowledged his wrongdoing multiple times and expressed remorse, including a written apology to the company after his dismissal.
